DougN’s Techdirt Profile

About DougN

DougN’s Comments

The problem with this is they cannot figure out how to do (require pushing a button) and still watch the movie, so every time they try that, they tell the techies who create the media to take it out because the disk is broken.

Sadly, this is so true. I used to work for the CS department at CMU, and have ties to several departments at Ohio State, and almost all the departments with which I am familiar are quite specific about things such as which publications, how big of a publication, etc. And this is true just to stay employed... more and more, tenure is this mythical thing you hear about and almost never see.

The saddest part... many publications such as the ApJ or those of the IEEE... you submit your article using something such as TeX/LaTeX, which you have created and formatted using wrappers the publisher provides... it goes through review/editing (editing generally done by the author), and once ready for publication, they just take the files for your article, put them in a subdirectory under the issue directory, add links to it from the index, and with almost no work on assembly, turn out potentially 2000+ pages a month, every month of every year (submissions permitting). Then, when you figure out what they charge for online access, it becomes almost criminal
.

Yes, when you are given a ticket, be it for parking, an accident or some moving violation (e.g. speeding), you **always** have the right to take it to court. However, if you decide to do so, and are found guilty, you often end up paying more (not including the fees for your lawyer, if you decided to hire one). Indeed, when you pay a ticket without fighting it, you are not pleading "Not Guilty" or "No contest", but you are in fact pleading "Guilty", which could be used against you in a civil case. While IANAL, I have this on very good authority from a friend of mine, who has 30 years as a criminal lawyer, and like 10+ as a prosecutor.

You seem to forget... what is often done here is minor quotes and links, not a wholesale lifting of an article. And what is worse, Monica's site has a copyright notice posted on it.

Now... in all honesty, I must admit, I personally know Monica. But given where all they are finding articles lifted from (major household names like Martha Stewart, Food Network, etc.), I would be very surprised if either the magazine or the career of the editor will survive what could have easily been avoided.

Of course, maybe he is suggesting the hiring of enough people to review all the video, comments, etc. Talk about a job stimulus plan...kinda like launching a satellite in orbit by hiring people to stand on one another's shoulders and place it there by hand.

AC, I don't think your assumed conclusions necessarily follow the facts. I myself have 2000+ songs, all from CDs which I have legally purchased and still possess. And I would have much more, if not for the fact that I have a teenage daughter and an ex, both of whom put most of the music I would want to purchase (like a $100 boxed set of Beethoven) out of reach, and the fact that other music is still not available on CD or other digital format. But one reason I have all that music is that I have differing musical moods, where at times I cannot get enough of say Liz Phair, the B52s or some other artist, and at other times I am in more of a mood for Blackmore's Night or Gregorian chant.

Now, with that said, I will agree that with some, it is like a kleptomaniac, or like the script kiddies and crackers who want to brag about how many systems they have access to, except the downloader thinks in terms of songs and movies. But with others, I think there is a certain amount of paradigm shift in the way folks think about music distribution (my wife would rather download individual songs from Tom Smith than to go out to purchase a CD with 10 songs, only one or two of which she wants).

One must also remember in this whole deal that with groups like the MPAA, RIAA and other backsides, they really don't want you to be able to do things like make backup copies, rip to your PC, etc. They would rather be able to charge you for a new CD when your old one has worn out, and would rather sell you the digital file to play on your MP3 player, and then sell you another one to play on some other device.

When you think about it, given how deep the pockets of the **AA are, and how empty those of the accused are, it is pretty much a given that they couldn't win. Yes, it may be how the legal system works, but it does not make it justice. And giving in to the threats of the **AA does not make one guilty, though they would like to tout that that is the case.